I continue to believe that these confusing messages about "derivative works" entirely miss the mark. Where in the statutory or case law can one find support for such conclusions as are reflected in these messages?
If you don't create "a work based upon one or more preexisting works" then you have simply not created a derivative work. 17 U.S.C. §101. How in the world does an independently-written piece of software that communicates with another independently-written piece of software through a published API ever become a derivative work of that other software? Where in the GPL does it say that it can become a derivative work? Nothing in the Copyright Act addresses the *use* of software in this way. If the GPL is enforced under the copyright law, then how could a court ever conclude that it reaches to such API-connected pre-existing works that merely get used together? /Larry Rosen > > > One of the questions about "Derivative Work" as it > relates to binary > > > only loadable objects, is the creation of a boundary layer of > > > execution. Specifically, the design and publishing an API which > > > properly glues into an open source gpl program or > kernel(ie loadable > > > modules services) designed to provide an execution layer > between the > > > GPL and Commerial private code. Where as no GPL code in > any form is > > > allowed to touch the Commerial code. The converse is true, > > > obviously. The execution layer or boundary. Now using this > > > reference from 1995, many companies have gotten legal positions > > > about binary modules. > > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b0rbb%245iu%40klaav a.hels > > inki.fi > > What Linus says presumably is valid for Linux. RMS agrees with that > in the message you forwarded. It doesn't necessarily apply to any > program other than Linux. Note in particular the last paragraph in > Linus's message. If all one is using are headers or .h files and everything else is from scratch, does using the headers under the statement above comply with the intent? I am not seeking an opinion without paying for it. > > I ship and sell binary only products, so I have an interest in not > > restricting people. > > Other than your customers, presumably. Restrictions cut both ways. In what way would a restrict cut both ways here? I am a little naive, but always try to do the right thing. Regards, Andre -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
